Krimel said to dmb: ...Wilber uses the same logic and for the same purpose. Wilber rejects evolutionary theory just like the fundamentalists. He agrees for an immaterial Spirit or conscious purpose in the universe, just like the fundamentalist.
dmb says: Elsewhere in this thread you complained that the topic was getting to large and asked if there is a core issue we should focus on. Well, I think this is it. As Keith suggested, it seems you are not able to distinquish fundamentalism from Wilber's notion of "Spirit". [Krimel] Please note that I did not say Wilber was a fundamentalist any more than I suggested that the Pope has a crystal in his pocket and hopes to live long enough to channel Shirley MacLaine. I said they both want to reject a scientific perspective because it interferes with their view of causality in the universe. [dmb] He does not reject evolution... [Krimel] Then please explain this: "Folks, give me a break on this one. I have a Master's degree in biochemistry, and a Ph.D. minus thesis in biochemistry and biophysics, with specialization in the mechanism of the visual process. I did my thesis on the photoisomerization of rhodopsin in bovine rod outer segments. I know evolutionary theory inside out, including the works of Dawkins et al. The material of mine that is being quoted is extremely popularized and simplified material for a lay audience. Publicly, virtually all scientists subscribe to neo-Darwinian theory. Privately, real scientists-that is, those of us with graduate degrees in science who have professionally practiced it-don't believe hardly any of its crucial tenets. Instead of a religious preacher like Dawkins, start with something like Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. And then guess what? Neo-Darwinian theory can't explain shit. Deal with it." This quote comes from a basically anti-Wilber website Vomiting Confetti but I can not find Wilber or his minions disavowing it. You are welcome to be the first. I do recalling him saying something very similar but less blatant in Kosmic Consciousness as well. [dmb] ...nor does he claim there is a "conscious purpose in the universe". Rather, he's saying that the universe IS the evolution of consciousness. He's saying that there is some level of awareness in every entity, that consciousness is inherent at every level or stage. He calls this "Spirit" so that we do not conclude that consciousness is limited to ego consciousness, subjective consciousness of the Cartesian self or any of the usual definitions. [Krimel] I really do not hear him saying this at all, because I have said the same sort of thing many many times. But not once have you accused me of parroting Wilber. Well, not the awareness in all entities part... IF this is what he is saying, (and I am not convinced) then I would accuse him of squandering the insight on a bunch of new age malarkey and using ridiculous terminology like spirit and consciousness to describe it. [dmb] He's trying to overcome the common belief that we have to choose between spiritually empty science or intellectually empty religion. In that light, his attack on scientific materialism is perfectly consistant with an equally vigorous attack on fundamentalism. [Krimel] Ah, back to flatland. This is patently absurd. If I were to grant that science is ultimately and finally reductionistic, this charge still would not stick. If it where true, we would have biologist explaining biology in terms of protons and leptons. Hell, historians would describe the Battle of Waterloo in terms of quantum mechanics. Nothing in science says or suggests that the world is flat. In fact as I remember history they were the first to claim it isn't. Butchering of Abbott aside this claim is just offensively inaccurate. It is a ludicrous statement made by pretentious romantics. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
